Rome against the Roman Empire

[caldrail]

Syria, Egipt, Asia and Greece- all were very wealthy and these richness allowed for payment of the army.

Up to a point, but was this wealth sustainable if it paid for roman arms elsewhere? After all, egypt was never as wealthy after the romans as before them. Neither for that matter were the others you mention - although I do accept under islam some areas did become prosperous again, at least for a while. The roman economy was not as organised as we might expect today. They were paying huge sums for foreign luxuries and animals and thus wealth was gradually exported. Notice how strapped for cash the later empire was, to the point they had no choice but to offer tax breaks to invite goths to settle in roman territory, both to increase provincial populations (and therefore the recruitment pool), and to provide extra tribal units for defence directly, plus the possibility of more tax income if the goths became extended landowners.

 

Yes Sudan and Scotland would have greatly enriched the empire and bolstered his strategic position .

Ha ha very funny But have you considered that conquering and romanising scotland would have probably reduced the need for military occupation and saved costs in the long term? Or that the african east coasts were wealthier than they are today with great opportunities for trade into the indian ocean?

 

The humble origins did not meant less ambition but often more. What this policy did was to expand the pool for wannnabe emperors from a narrow group of educated, experienced statesman to any sword carrier that could became popular with the soldiers.

Not really, because most faceless administrators from more humble backgrounds stood little chance of achieving the credibility needed to run an empire or even mount a threat to it.

[Lex]

The army ruled alone and with impunity and I wonder if Maxentius rebellion was more then just an usurpation, but a political move to restore Rome and her institutions to previous leadership.

Its difficult to say. An usurper often claims to be doing it for the people, or for the good of the nation, whilst actually wanting to lord it over everyone else. I doubt many of them were serious about restoring Rome as it was, and were more likely thinking of putting Rome back together to suit themselves.

Maybe so, but the intention would seem to be to have Rome at the centre again, no matter what the motivations might really be of those calling the shots. With regards to the support of the local population, I'd say there was a patriotic element to it. Why would the Italians not want their territory to be centre-stage again? They'd have more prestige, and more wealth would probably be coming into the region.

 

Perhaps if Rome's subsidies had not been taken away and the area was not reduced to the status of an ordinary province, then the whole event could have been avoided? Who knows? But from just reading Gibbon on this, my impression is that the Romans and Italians were harbouring some discontent about the overall situation for a while.

Edited April 24, 2008 by Lex

[Kosmo]

Given the agricultural knowledge at the time Scotland was very poor. It was actually conquered by Agricola after Mons Grapius but they decided it was not woth it so Diocletian moved Legio II Adiutrix to the badly threatened Danube frontier. The roman army large numbers in Britain had more to do with rebelious britons then with weak caledonians. They failed to romanise North and West Britain, why do you think that they would have succed in the Highlands?

The trade thru the East african coast to India had some natural restraints that made it difficult. The prevailing wind in the northen half Red Sea blows from the north making it easy to go to India but hard to came back above Djiddah so ports tended to be further south poorly connected by roads thru desert, the arid coast does not have water and timber and it's not suited for agriculture etc. An improved trading base would have increased the trade deficit that you complained about.

 

Now I'm trying to find other cases of roman opposition to the empire.

[Gaius Octavius]

Were not the new non-aristocratic administrators of provinces and dioceses more rapacious than the aristocrats? Did not the over taxation and rapine of the eastern peasant farmers not reduce, and eventually destroy their loyalty to Rome, leaving them in the position of not caring who their overlord was?

 

Insofar as conquering other countries is concerned, I think that the Romans conquered more for defensive reasons (broadly speaking), rather than for commercial or egotistical reasons. When countries trade, it is not in their interests to be at war. Both become enriched by trading. Personally, I do not believe that the Romans were such economic Neanderthals as to not recognize this. Had they conquered and retained Scotland, how many more legions would they have had to station there along with the four already stationed south and north of Hadrian's Wall, (which were there until the pay wagons stopped coming from Roma, and the number the most in any province)? Ditto for most of the other conquests suggested. As has been mentioned earlier, and elsewhere, legions are expensive.

 

How much did Diocletion's depreciation (Help!, Moon. or MPC, my brain refuses to come up with the correct word!), of the currency have to do with all we are speaking of?

 

Did any ethnic Greeks ever rule the Empire?

Edited April 24, 2008 by Gaius Octavius

[caldrail]

With regards to the support of the local population, I'd say there was a patriotic element to it. Why would the Italians not want their territory to be centre-stage again? They'd have more prestige, and more wealth would probably be coming into the region.

Possibly some thought like that, but they would be people with a better overall view of the roman world, which means you're talking about connected people - senators for instance. The average joe probably only cared about keeping a roof over his head, and roman prestige isn't useful for filling his belly. The patriotic element is difficult to justify. people generally didn't owe those feelings to the state, but to an individual - their patron, their commander, or their emperor. Remember that Rome was a city-state, not a nation. Nationalism was undesirable from the roman view because it inevitably led to rebellion.

[Lex]

Possibly some thought like that, but they would be people with a better overall view of the roman world, which means you're talking about connected people - senators for instance. The average joe probably only cared about keeping a roof over his head, and roman prestige isn't useful for filling his belly.

Yes, I'm refering more to the educated classes and the people with influence. But with Rome at the centre-stage, I'm sure the population would equate this with more wealth in the region and thus not have a problem with support of such an idea.

 

The patriotic element is difficult to justify. people generally didn't owe those feelings to the state, but to an individual - their patron, their commander, or their emperor. Remember that Rome was a city-state, not a nation. Nationalism was undesirable from the roman view because it inevitably led to rebellion.

I'd just like to clarify, that when I say 'Italians' I'm refering to the people of that region and not in the modern context of a nation-state. When we're talking about Rome versus Rome it just makes it easier to differentiate.

Though I deliberately used the word 'patriotism' and not 'nationalism', since I was not refering to a nation-state but rather the support of a region or group/s and not of a state/nation.

Edited April 26, 2008 by Lex